Old school design flaws... are they real problems !

1246

Comments

  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioMember UncommonPosts: 2,921
    Loke666 said:
    Wizardry said:
    Dungeon....tactical?is it confusing navigating tight dungeon corridors wading through trash mobs to get to a boss?Does it even make sense,why is that Boss living at the end of a Dungeon?Forcing players into instances is not and never will be good game design,it is simply for rinse and repeat purposes,NOT for realistic game play or immersion,just for attaining loot.

    Simple tactics were learned by gamer's long before Wow arrived.Mostly it was because of bad game design/coding but still players had to adapt to for example drawing hate through walls and aggroing 20 mobs.Even games never mentioned around here offer tactics and difficult gameplay,it is not akin just to the few mentioned games inside of dungeons.

    Itf so happens there is the odd cave dweller boss for some unknown reason,so be it,but creating dungeon after dungeon instances just tells me how bad that developer is at designing a game and is looking for EASY ways to do it.A game should foremost be reinforcing the immersive and RP feel of a game,not reinforcing end game dungeon instance looting,this would imo be considered an old school game design FLAW.

    I want a game to look and feel like a real world would look.I would like to see developers reinforce the open game worlds and not dumb them down into single player game designs,then claim to be an online mmo.
    Well, the classical reason is probably based on ancient egyptian tombes. You buried your Farao with treasures and they did put in traps as well. If they could have put in undeads to guard it they would have with a nasty one in the final chamber.

     Another inspiration is probably the tunnel system of Cu Chi in Vietnam, it was in clear memory when D&D came out and it also had plenty of traps as well as guards,

    But early RPG dungeons did have a far higher focus on traps and less on mobs, the players had to spend a lot of time outwitting fiendish traps. That type of gameplay does not translate that good to MMOs and already had problems in D&D because those trap dungeons needs a certainly mentality from your players to be fun so we also got the classic orc and goblin cavern systems to clear for players who wanted more action.

    A well made massive dungeon is still fun in my book but the shorter ones just made to fight a hard boss after a bunch of trash mobs gets boring after a while.
    Don't forget the curses (in real life ancient tombs).

    Personally, I'm done with the traditional designs in games.
    I want to see an underworld setting that's full of interconnected tombs, ruins, and underworlds, connected by tunnels and caverns and an entire underworld ecosystem. Not for "everything dungeon", but for a lot of it. Multiple biospheres. Some could be buried city ruins, cursed with some evil force. Others could be multiple caverns connected with tunnels in the rock. Some could be combinations. And evil underground races eagerly digging into them all from deep below.

    I'm tired of the linear design. Open it up and make something players can play for as long as they want, whenever they want, not just per itinerary of game design. That's for old folks on tours. Who wants to be an old folk on a guided tour?

    I want to see better AI, and I want to see things like traps that are actually dangerous and MOBs that interact with the game world.
    Same as the above ground world.
    Same as an undersea world.
    Loke666

    Once upon a time....

  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,811
    Don't forget the curses (in real life ancient tombs).

    Personally, I'm done with the traditional designs in games.
    I want to see an underworld setting that's full of interconnected tombs, ruins, and underworlds, connected by tunnels and caverns and an entire underworld ecosystem. Not for "everything dungeon", but for a lot of it. Multiple biospheres. Some could be buried city ruins, cursed with some evil force. Others could be multiple caverns connected with tunnels in the rock. Some could be combinations. And evil underground races eagerly digging into them all from deep below.

    I'm tired of the linear design. Open it up and make something players can play for as long as they want, whenever they want, not just per itinerary of game design. That's for old folks on tours. Who wants to be an old folk on a guided tour?

    I want to see better AI, and I want to see things like traps that are actually dangerous and MOBs that interact with the game world.
    Same as the above ground world.
    Same as an undersea world.
    I don't really belive in actual curses myself but fine, the Egyptians surely did.

    I wouldn't mind an Underdark MMO (it is an underworld region of the Forgotten realms if anyone missed that).

    And I agree with you. 
    ConstantineMerus
  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioMember UncommonPosts: 2,921
    Loke666 said:
    Don't forget the curses (in real life ancient tombs).

    Personally, I'm done with the traditional designs in games.
    I want to see an underworld setting that's full of interconnected tombs, ruins, and underworlds, connected by tunnels and caverns and an entire underworld ecosystem. Not for "everything dungeon", but for a lot of it. Multiple biospheres. Some could be buried city ruins, cursed with some evil force. Others could be multiple caverns connected with tunnels in the rock. Some could be combinations. And evil underground races eagerly digging into them all from deep below.

    I'm tired of the linear design. Open it up and make something players can play for as long as they want, whenever they want, not just per itinerary of game design. That's for old folks on tours. Who wants to be an old folk on a guided tour?

    I want to see better AI, and I want to see things like traps that are actually dangerous and MOBs that interact with the game world.
    Same as the above ground world.
    Same as an undersea world.
    I don't really belive in actual curses myself but fine, the Egyptians surely did.

    I wouldn't mind an Underdark MMO (it is an underworld region of the Forgotten realms if anyone missed that).

    And I agree with you. 
    I mentioned the curses just to point out the fantasy involved, which opens the ideas of monsters, "in the night" so to speak. In other words, it was that aspect of real life, supposed curses and all, that leads to the next steps in fantasy.

    I don't want just an underground game, that's not what I meant either. But that's where I want to see that part of games go.
    I want a complete game world that's better than the stuff of present gaming in every way.
    It's time.
    No more "go here and do this" direction. Open world and let me go where I want on any given play session. Or let me stay where I am if I like it, and not suffer loss of advancement in the game or lack of entertainment.

    Once upon a time....

  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,811
    Loke666 said:
    I don't really belive in actual curses myself but fine, the Egyptians surely did.

    I wouldn't mind an Underdark MMO (it is an underworld region of the Forgotten realms if anyone missed that).

    And I agree with you. 
    I mentioned the curses just to point out the fantasy involved, which opens the ideas of monsters, "in the night" so to speak. In other words, it was that aspect of real life, supposed curses and all, that leads to the next steps in fantasy.

    I don't want just an underground game, that's not what I meant either. But that's where I want to see that part of games go.
    I want a complete game world that's better than the stuff of present gaming in every way.
    It's time.
    No more "go here and do this" direction. Open world and let me go where I want on any given play session. Or let me stay where I am if I like it, and not suffer loss of advancement in the game or lack of entertainment.
    Lol, I didn't say you believed in them either. :)

    I could actually play a game only set in the underdark or with a overworld city or 2. Yes, some overworld maps as well doesn't hurt though.

    I also don't like very much to be constantly told what to do and where to go  but you need some kind of mechanics if you want to stay in the same zone a lot before then endgame (if you have an endgame).

    A low powergap, GW2s downlevling mechanics or something else because it is not very fun to just run over anything I meet and the rewards should be based on Risk Vs reward after all.
  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,111
    Loke666 said:
    Loke666 said:
    I don't really belive in actual curses myself but fine, the Egyptians surely did.

    I wouldn't mind an Underdark MMO (it is an underworld region of the Forgotten realms if anyone missed that).

    And I agree with you. 
    I mentioned the curses just to point out the fantasy involved, which opens the ideas of monsters, "in the night" so to speak. In other words, it was that aspect of real life, supposed curses and all, that leads to the next steps in fantasy.

    I don't want just an underground game, that's not what I meant either. But that's where I want to see that part of games go.
    I want a complete game world that's better than the stuff of present gaming in every way.
    It's time.
    No more "go here and do this" direction. Open world and let me go where I want on any given play session. Or let me stay where I am if I like it, and not suffer loss of advancement in the game or lack of entertainment.
    Lol, I didn't say you believed in them either. :)

    I could actually play a game only set in the underdark or with a overworld city or 2. Yes, some overworld maps as well doesn't hurt though.

    I also don't like very much to be constantly told what to do and where to go  but you need some kind of mechanics if you want to stay in the same zone a lot before then endgame (if you have an endgame).

    A low powergap, GW2s downlevling mechanics or something else because it is not very fun to just run over anything I meet and the rewards should be based on Risk Vs reward after all.

    Speaking of constantly being told what to do. 

    In another topic discussing the birth of the 3rd generation of mmos where Warhammer Online was the first of it's kind.  Well, the second was "Rift Online". 

    Rift Online was the benchmark of carrot-on-a-stick.  Two quest per quest hub as you move left to right across the zone until you load into another zone and start over.  Everything about the game was FORCED unless a Rift opens up for everyone to run to.  But once the event was over the player had to run to where they left off and play solo.... This could have gone unnoticed unless you played with a friend or group.  Only then it became crystal clear apparent.

    If a friend or another player was just a few levels above or below they were unable to help. You had to match quest for quest. 

    I have to say the hybrid class builds were great, and same with the dungeons.
    SteelhelmAmaranthar
  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioMember UncommonPosts: 2,921
    edited October 13
    Loke666 said:
    Loke666 said:
    I don't really belive in actual curses myself but fine, the Egyptians surely did.

    I wouldn't mind an Underdark MMO (it is an underworld region of the Forgotten realms if anyone missed that).

    And I agree with you. 
    I mentioned the curses just to point out the fantasy involved, which opens the ideas of monsters, "in the night" so to speak. In other words, it was that aspect of real life, supposed curses and all, that leads to the next steps in fantasy.

    I don't want just an underground game, that's not what I meant either. But that's where I want to see that part of games go.
    I want a complete game world that's better than the stuff of present gaming in every way.
    It's time.
    No more "go here and do this" direction. Open world and let me go where I want on any given play session. Or let me stay where I am if I like it, and not suffer loss of advancement in the game or lack of entertainment.
    Lol, I didn't say you believed in them either. :)

    I could actually play a game only set in the underdark or with a overworld city or 2. Yes, some overworld maps as well doesn't hurt though.

    I also don't like very much to be constantly told what to do and where to go  but you need some kind of mechanics if you want to stay in the same zone a lot before then endgame (if you have an endgame).

    A low powergap, GW2s downlevling mechanics or something else because it is not very fun to just run over anything I meet and the rewards should be based on Risk Vs reward after all.
    Low power gaps fixes many, many flaws.
    All we have top do is give up that feeling like we're getting somewhere fast (next level and the power over previous level content) when in fact we find more of the same at the next level.

    So, basically, that means that old content needs something to keep it fresh, fun, and entertaining.
    That's where the very fact of low power gaps fixes even that. Now you can take what used to be "higher level content" and mix it right in with what used to be "lower level content".
    -Danger persists.
    -Friendships persist, guilds become stronger units and centers of activity, purpose can be defined.
    -Players can feel like they have a home area/base.
    -Story and lore can be spread all over the game world, and be meaningful no matter what your level of advancement.
    -MOBs can move and be anywhere.
    -Story can move and be anywhere, allowing advanced and wide spread (deeper) design. Deeper mystery is possible and not restricted by level.
    -Rare and unique content becomes much more meaningful because it can be anywhere and never lose it's importance.
    -Past achievements are no longer something that becomes meaningless as you advance.
    -Newness can be anywhere on a regular basis.
    -The world can change without restrictions based on level design.
    -No need for problematic adjustments to character "levels" in order to allow them to mix in.
    Post edited by Amaranthar on
    Steelhelm

    Once upon a time....

  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,811
    Low power gaps fixes many, many flaws.
    All we have top do is give up that feeling like we're getting somewhere fast (next level and the power over previous level content) when in fact we find more of the same at the next level.

    So, basically, that means that old content needs something to keep it fresh, fun, and entertaining.
    That's where the very fact of low power gaps fixes even that. Now you can take what used to be "higher level content" and mix it right in with what used to be "lower level content".
    -Danger persists.
    -Friendships persist, guilds become stronger units and centers of activity, purpose can be defined.
    -Players can feel like they have a home area/base.
    -Story and lore can be spread all over the game world, and be meaningful no matter what your level of advancement.
    -MOBs can move and be anywhere.
    -Story can move and be anywhere, allowing advanced and wide spread (deeper) design. Deeper mystery is possible and not restricted by level.
    -Rare and unique content becomes much more meaningful because it can be anywhere and never lose it's importance.
    -Past achievements are no longer something that becomes meaningless as you advance.
    -Newness can be anywhere on a regular basis.
    -The world can change without restrictions based on level design.
    -No need for problematic adjustments to character "levels" in order to allow them to mix in.
    Agreed but whenever I mention it people start crying a lot, low powergap also means that you can't outlevel things and actually have to learn how to play better. And you can't go to a lowbie zone and pretend you are a God (something very popular in any game with open world PvP).
  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioMember UncommonPosts: 2,921
    edited October 13
    Loke666 said:
    Low power gaps fixes many, many flaws.
    All we have top do is give up that feeling like we're getting somewhere fast (next level and the power over previous level content) when in fact we find more of the same at the next level.

    So, basically, that means that old content needs something to keep it fresh, fun, and entertaining.
    That's where the very fact of low power gaps fixes even that. Now you can take what used to be "higher level content" and mix it right in with what used to be "lower level content".
    -Danger persists.
    -Friendships persist, guilds become stronger units and centers of activity, purpose can be defined.
    -Players can feel like they have a home area/base.
    -Story and lore can be spread all over the game world, and be meaningful no matter what your level of advancement.
    -MOBs can move and be anywhere.
    -Story can move and be anywhere, allowing advanced and wide spread (deeper) design. Deeper mystery is possible and not restricted by level.
    -Rare and unique content becomes much more meaningful because it can be anywhere and never lose it's importance.
    -Past achievements are no longer something that becomes meaningless as you advance.
    -Newness can be anywhere on a regular basis.
    -The world can change without restrictions based on level design.
    -No need for problematic adjustments to character "levels" in order to allow them to mix in.
    Agreed but whenever I mention it people start crying a lot, low powergap also means that you can't outlevel things and actually have to learn how to play better. And you can't go to a lowbie zone and pretend you are a God (something very popular in any game with open world PvP).
    Yes!
    Many gamers like the combat style that allows personal input, such as in Skyrim. Sorry, I haven't played much of anything else in years so that's the best example I can give.
    This opens up tactical moves and thinking in that sense.
    This is a good thing.

    As far as open PvP, and no actual punishment for abusing other players, that's a thing of the past as far as large scale MMO's go. Good for some games, including smaller scale MMO's, but not for a big MMO.

    I've got an idea on PvP by action and reaction that MIGHT work though to simulate open world PvP, where one player commits a crime of sorts to open the door for other players to jump into PvP with them.
    And "crime" including such things as carrying an artifact that "belongs" to another group of players...so it's ok to take it by force in that case.
    That limits PvP, but allows it anywhere, anytime, as long as someone is committing a "crime" against others.

    Example:
    A player takes an artifact from a dungeon, but this artifact has significance to a group of players who are official members to a "guild", or cult. This can be a religious group or even a guild of farmers whose artifact is a golden seed that brings better harvests.
    So anyone allied to that farmer "guild" can attack said player who took said seed.

    Or a tavern owner spots a player stealing a silver cup from his tavern. His allied friends (by some guild association as "allies") can attack the thief without penalty, but if they do then that thief's friends (allied) can also join the fray.
    That's "realism", but limits PvP to times where an action causes it.

    But then I'd also allow PvP at anytime against anyone, but with heavy penalties in the end for standard "crimes" such as murder and to a lesser degree theft.

    So in other words, it's open PvP, but with stiff penalties UNLESS there's a playable cause.
    Post edited by Amaranthar on
    Steelhelm

    Once upon a time....

  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,811
    Yes!
    Many gamers like the combat style that allows personal input, such as in Skyrim. Sorry, I haven't played much of anything else in years so that's the best example I can give.
    This opens up tactical moves and thinking in that sense.
    This is a good thing.

    As far as open PvP, and no actual punishment for abusing other players, that's a thing of the past as far as large scale MMO's go. Good for some games, including smaller scale MMO's, but not for a big MMO.

    I've got an idea on PvP by action and reaction that MIGHT work though to simulate open world PvP, where one player commits a crime of sorts to open the door for other players to jump into PvP with them.
    And "crime" including such things as carrying an artifact that "belongs" to another group of players...so it's ok to take it by force in that case.
    That limits PvP, but allows it anywhere, anytime, as long as someone is committing a "crime" against others.

    Example:
    A player takes an artifact from a dungeon, but this artifact has significance to a group of players who are official members to a "guild", or cult. This can be a religious group or even a guild of farmers whose artifact is a golden seed that brings better harvests.
    So anyone allied to that farmer "guild" can attack said player who took said seed.

    Or a tavern owner spots a player stealing a silver cup from his tavern. His allied friends (by some guild association as "allies") can attack the thief without penalty, but if they do then that thief's friends (allied) can also join the fray.
    That's "realism", but limits PvP to times where an action causes it.

    But then I'd also allow PvP at anytime against anyone, but with heavy penalties in the end for standard "crimes" such as murder and to a lesser degree theft.

    So in other words, it's open PvP, but with stiff penalties UNLESS there's a playable cause.
    Just take battlefield, add a persistent world and a slight progression with low powergap and you have a open world PvP MMO that would get millions of players.

    The reason full PvP MMOs don't work well at the moment is to a rather large degree because the powergap, whenever you fight someone in a FPS you can win or loose depending on luck and your personal skill. When levels and gear makes one side autowin most fights it just isn't fun.

    Also, many MMOs add FFA PvP and full loot and those 2 is incredible hard if not impossible to have in a mainstream massive game. Even most FPS games have faction based PvP for a reason, it is what most players think is fun.

    I think you are overthinking things, have 3-9 factions (with more then 3 you can have temporary war and peace between factions to make things more interesting), only allow none duel PvP against others factions (or factions you are at war with) and have a low powergap.

    Stay away from looting other players or just let them loot the cash the players is wearing.

    If you want a successful PvP MMO you need to look on the games from other genres that are very successful with it and make the combat rather similar but with a bit MMO styled progression. Something similar to the original Guildwars for instance.

    Stay away from borrowing features for games that are niche but neither can you borrow the gameplay from PvE games where you progress through levels and powerful gear.

    Penalties for PvP have never worked, it was tried already in UO and have since many times. What you need to do instead is to make PvP fun and accessible. Unless you want to make a niche game which is fine. Griefing is usually done by people who have zero chance of being killed by their victims, if you even the odds griefing will go down far more then by any penalty.
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    edited October 13
    Loke666 said:
    Yes!
    Many gamers like the combat style that allows personal input, such as in Skyrim. Sorry, I haven't played much of anything else in years so that's the best example I can give.
    This opens up tactical moves and thinking in that sense.
    This is a good thing.

    As far as open PvP, and no actual punishment for abusing other players, that's a thing of the past as far as large scale MMO's go. Good for some games, including smaller scale MMO's, but not for a big MMO.

    I've got an idea on PvP by action and reaction that MIGHT work though to simulate open world PvP, where one player commits a crime of sorts to open the door for other players to jump into PvP with them.
    And "crime" including such things as carrying an artifact that "belongs" to another group of players...so it's ok to take it by force in that case.
    That limits PvP, but allows it anywhere, anytime, as long as someone is committing a "crime" against others.

    Example:
    A player takes an artifact from a dungeon, but this artifact has significance to a group of players who are official members to a "guild", or cult. This can be a religious group or even a guild of farmers whose artifact is a golden seed that brings better harvests.
    So anyone allied to that farmer "guild" can attack said player who took said seed.

    Or a tavern owner spots a player stealing a silver cup from his tavern. His allied friends (by some guild association as "allies") can attack the thief without penalty, but if they do then that thief's friends (allied) can also join the fray.
    That's "realism", but limits PvP to times where an action causes it.

    But then I'd also allow PvP at anytime against anyone, but with heavy penalties in the end for standard "crimes" such as murder and to a lesser degree theft.

    So in other words, it's open PvP, but with stiff penalties UNLESS there's a playable cause.
    Just take battlefield, add a persistent world and a slight progression with low powergap and you have a open world PvP MMO that would get millions of players.

    The reason full PvP MMOs don't work well at the moment is to a rather large degree because the powergap, whenever you fight someone in a FPS you can win or loose depending on luck and your personal skill. When levels and gear makes one side autowin most fights it just isn't fun.

    Also, many MMOs add FFA PvP and full loot and those 2 is incredible hard if not impossible to have in a mainstream massive game. Even most FPS games have faction based PvP for a reason, it is what most players think is fun.

    I think you are overthinking things, have 3-9 factions (with more then 3 you can have temporary war and peace between factions to make things more interesting), only allow none duel PvP against others factions (or factions you are at war with) and have a low powergap.

    Stay away from looting other players or just let them loot the cash the players is wearing.

    If you want a successful PvP MMO you need to look on the games from other genres that are very successful with it and make the combat rather similar but with a bit MMO styled progression. Something similar to the original Guildwars for instance.

    Stay away from borrowing features for games that are niche but neither can you borrow the gameplay from PvE games where you progress through levels and powerful gear.

    Penalties for PvP have never worked, it was tried already in UO and have since many times. What you need to do instead is to make PvP fun and accessible. Unless you want to make a niche game which is fine. Griefing is usually done by people who have zero chance of being killed by their victims, if you even the odds griefing will go down far more then by any penalty.
    STrange the most succesfull and well thought of MMORPG PvP games were all Very Unbalanced .. UO, DAoC, AC/DArktide,Shadowbane, Warhammer, Darkfall, Vanilla Wow....  Balance works for FPS .. it does not translate to sucess in an MMORPG , quite the contrary and reason it fails is the pathetic screams for balance , You want Balance go play a MOBA or a FPS .. MMORPGs best success at PvP came unbalanced because it cultivated community and teamwork ..
    Post edited by Scorchien on
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,782
    edited October 14
    I like Darkfall but did you seriously just say it was one of the most successful MMOs? It was anything but. And Warhammer had a huge spike of players matched only by how rapidly that population declined. It's like a little blip on the MMO radar. I've called other MMOs a flash in the pan but Warhammer is the classic "flash in the pan" against which other MMOs can be measured.

    DAoC, AC/Darktide, and Shadowbane are all highly debateable. They may have a lot of people that still love them, both those games had died out before I even realized they were a big deal or got the chance to play them. So obviously too few people loved them enough to keep actively playing them.

    UO was a different market, in a different time. It got away with a lot of things because MMOs were in their infancy and the competition was a lot more sparse.

    And WoW has never been a PvP focused game.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
    Arglebargle
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    edited October 14
    Eldurian said:
    I like Darkfall but did you seriously just say it was one of the most successful MMOs? It was anything but. And Warhammer had a huge spike of players matched only by how rapidly that population declined. It's like a little blip on the MMO radar. I've called other MMOs a flash in the pan but Warhammer is the classic "flash in the pan" against which other MMOs can be measured.

    DAoC, AC/Darktide, and Shadowbane are all highly debateable. Those games had died out before I even realized they were a big deal or got the chance to play them.

    UO was a different market, in a different time. It got away with a lot of things because MMOs were in their infancy and the competition was a lot more sparse.

    And WoW has never been a PvP focused game.
    They are the most succesful well thought of PvP MMOrpgs ..is what i said .. thats different than most succesful MMOs isnt it ...

     And it still stands unless you would like to remove one of those and put a better PvP MMORPG in its place .. plz do

      And because you didnt realize it makes it what ... They didnt happen .. wtf .. and if you didnt play them you have no credibilty to speak on them ..
    Post edited by Scorchien on
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,782
    edited October 14
    Absolutely. EVE. EVE is unquestionably the most successful PvP focused MMO ever, and you didn't even include it on your list. And while there has been no MMO made to date with a small power gap, EVE does have the lowest barrier to entry of any MMO out there in terms of stat gap. The tracking speed / sig radius mechanics make it possible to be useful in fleets from your very first day of play.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    Eldurian said:
    Absolutely. EVE. EVE is unquestionably the most successful focused PvP MMO ever, and you didn't even include it on your list. And while there has been no MMO made to date with a small power gap, EVE does have the lowest barrier to entry of any MMO out there. The tracking speed / sig radius mechanics make it possible to be useful in fleets from your very first day of play.
    lmfao ,, thx forgot about Eve ...

      Yes its not balanced either .. but thx for making my point
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,782
    EVE is not balanced but it's by far the most balanced, and by far the most successful.
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    edited October 14
    Eldurian said:
    EVE is not balanced but it's by far the most balanced, and by far the most successful.
    lol its not balanced at all


     The most balanced .. cmon man .weak
    Post edited by Scorchien on
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,782
    edited October 14
    Tell that to my character that had a 98% ISK efficiency rating on zKillboards after like a week or two of play.

    Haven't gone on roams in a long time so it's gone down a bit (Meagre 96.8% now) but if you scroll through his history you can see that most the kills are me and a bunch of other newbs in thrashers that take like 24 hours training swarming up on people in big expensive rigs, and blowing their butt up.

    The ability to do that kind of crap is 100% why EVE is the most successful PvP MMO. And if a well done game comes out with an even lower stat gap / barrier to entry it will probably replace it.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,811
    Scorchien said:
    STrange the most succesfull and well thought of MMORPG PvP games were all Very Unbalanced .. UO, DAoC, AC/DArktide,Shadowbane, Warhammer, Darkfall, Vanilla Wow....  Balance works for FPS .. it does not translate to sucess in an MMORPG , quite the contrary and reason it fails is the pathetic screams for balance , You want Balance go play a MOBA or a FPS .. MMORPGs best success at PvP came unbalanced because it cultivated community and teamwork ..
    Funny, most of those games were not that successful Yeah, Wow did incredible but the PvP servers were rather empty and they took Guildwars PvP to make it more popular. Calling games that closed down after a few years successful seems wrong to me, or like DF that never had even 100K players and that have been revamped several times.

    UO was very successful at the time but it honestly only had 2 competitors: Meridian 59 and The realm. I don't know about the Realm but M59s early PvP was terrible (I heard iit got a lot better some years later though). Still, they did the trammel update in an attempt to keep the PvEers.

    DaoCs PvP was good though, partly because they they balanced the 3 sides against eachother instead of individual players.

    Strange that you didn't mention Lineage in there, it had more PvPers then all those games together including Wow.

    One balanced PvP game that was incredible popular was Guildwars.

    Anyways, if Wow only had open PvP on all servers it would never become nearly as popular and it still had faction based PvP, if it had only FFA PvP with full loot (and no PvE servers) the game would have become a fraction of what it became.

    If you want massive amount of open world PvP players you can either release your game in South Korea like Lineage or you need need that balance. It doesn't have to be an exact balance but when a lousy playing vet beat a good playing noob you will do badly.

    As I said, if you want a niche game there is nothing wrong with that and then you can do as you suggested but a FFA full loot PvP game will never be more then niche and any EQ/Wow based game that just adds faction based open world PvP will have few PvP servers, or empty ones.
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    Eldurian said:
    Tell that to my character that had a 98% ISK efficiency rating on zKillboards after like a week or two of play.
    over 80% of PvP in Eve is premeditated outright Murder , not a fight .. Most fights players engage in are fights they Know they can win and they run from everything else . If you find yourself in a 'fair fight' with equal numbers, odds are very likely someone has made a horrible (or funny) mistake.


  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,782
    Scorchien said:
    Eldurian said:
    Tell that to my character that had a 98% ISK efficiency rating on zKillboards after like a week or two of play.
    over 80% of PvP in Eve is premeditated outright Murder , not a fight .. Most fights players engage in are fights they Know they can win and they run from everything else . If you find yourself in a 'fair fight' with equal numbers, odds are very likely someone has made a horrible (or funny) mistake.
    Totally off subject. That has nothing to do stat based disparity. The fact I can get a 98% isk efficiency rating in a cheap rig that takes less than 24 hours to train and can be flown by Minmatar alpha clones does.
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    edited October 14
    Eldurian said:
    Scorchien said:
    Eldurian said:
    Tell that to my character that had a 98% ISK efficiency rating on zKillboards after like a week or two of play.
    over 80% of PvP in Eve is premeditated outright Murder , not a fight .. Most fights players engage in are fights they Know they can win and they run from everything else . If you find yourself in a 'fair fight' with equal numbers, odds are very likely someone has made a horrible (or funny) mistake.
    Totally off subject. That has nothing to do stat based disparity. The fact I can get a 98% isk efficiency rating in a cheap rig that takes less than 24 hours to train and can be flown by Minmatar alpha clones does.
    its not off Subject, the subject was balance here, not the stroking of your personal Epeen ..

      And Eve is not balanced , as i pointed out ..Your personal experience is what  is off  subject  and not indicative of Eves general PvP game play
    Post edited by Scorchien on
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,782
    edited October 14
    Very few people in MMOs care about equal numbers vs. equal numbers (except as an excuse occasionally offered for losing before they go zerg someone else) and just because you throw that strawman up and pretend that's what they mean by balance doesn't mean they actually give half a crap about it.

    What people are talking about 99% of the time when they are discussing how horribly imbalanced MMO PvP is, is how you can walk up to a newb on a veteran character and slap them around while they are powerless to resist. That is the imbalance people care about.

    And that is the imbalance that EVE has clearly addressed when swarms of newbs in ships worth like 2 mil a pop are taking out multi-hundred million ISK ships flown by veteran characters. And that is why EVE is the most balanced, and the most successful.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
    Loke666
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    edited October 14
    Eldurian said:
    Very few people in MMOs care about equal numbers vs. equal numbers (except as an excuse occasionally offered for losing before they go zerg someone else) and just because you throw that strawman up and pretend that's what they mean by balance doesn't mean they actually give half a crap about it.

    What people are talking about 99% of the time when they are discussing how horribly imbalanced MMO PvP is, is how you can walk up to a newb on a veteran character and slap them around while they are powerless to resist. That is the imbalance people care about.

    And that is the imbalance that EVE has clearly addressed when swarms of newbs in ships worth like 2 mil a pop are taking out multi-hundred million ISK ships flown by veteran characters. And that is why EVE is the most balanced, and the most successful.
       Your example and others is not PvP , kickin Kittens is not PvP and smart kids know that ..

      They also know you cant try to balance a PVP game around that kind of behavior , It results in making the real PvP a mess ..

      And .. once again Eve is not balanced , so we have come full circle ..
      Back to my origianl point that you traveled  so far to agree with ...

      Eve is imbalanced ..

     Thx ...

    Post edited by Scorchien on
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,782
    edited October 14
    Find me a single other MMO where a handful of new players in crap gear can fairly easily take out a well geared vet. And then on top of that, the vet losses their gear. You may not think PvP should be balanced around it, but a hell of a lot of people do, and they did balance it better than any other game. Which is what makes it the most balanced game.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,973
    edited October 14
    Eldurian said:
    Find me a single other MMO where a handful of new players in crap gear can fairly easily take out a well geared vet. And then on top of that, the vet losses their gear. You may not think PvP should be balanced around it but they did balance it better than any other game. Which is what makes it the most balanced game.
    talk about strawman , you are being ridiculous ,make up your mind .. is it Imbalanced or balanced or the most balanced ... wee its everything ..

      Its not Balanced period .. Stop trying to color it grey ..
    Loke666 said:
    Scorchien said:
    STrange the most succesfull and well thought of MMORPG PvP games were all Very Unbalanced .. UO, DAoC, AC/DArktide,Shadowbane, Warhammer, Darkfall, Vanilla Wow....  Balance works for FPS .. it does not translate to sucess in an MMORPG , quite the contrary and reason it fails is the pathetic screams for balance , You want Balance go play a MOBA or a FPS .. MMORPGs best success at PvP came unbalanced because it cultivated community and teamwork ..
    Funny, most of those games were not that successful Yeah, Wow did incredible but the PvP servers were rather empty and they took Guildwars PvP to make it more popular. Calling games that closed down after a few years successful seems wrong to me, or like DF that never had even 100K players and that have been revamped several times.

    UO was very successful at the time but it honestly only had 2 competitors: Meridian 59 and The realm. I don't know about the Realm but M59s early PvP was terrible (I heard iit got a lot better some years later though). Still, they did the trammel update in an attempt to keep the PvEers.

    DaoCs PvP was good though, partly because they they balanced the 3 sides against eachother instead of individual players.

    Strange that you didn't mention Lineage in there, it had more PvPers then all those games together including Wow.

    One balanced PvP game that was incredible popular was Guildwars.

    Anyways, if Wow only had open PvP on all servers it would never become nearly as popular and it still had faction based PvP, if it had only FFA PvP with full loot (and no PvE servers) the game would have become a fraction of what it became.

    If you want massive amount of open world PvP players you can either release your game in South Korea like Lineage or you need need that balance. It doesn't have to be an exact balance but when a lousy playing vet beat a good playing noob you will do badly.

    As I said, if you want a niche game there is nothing wrong with that and then you can do as you suggested but a FFA full loot PvP game will never be more then niche and any EQ/Wow based game that just adds faction based open world PvP will have few PvP servers, or empty ones.
        And if it helps anyone , because you seem to be hung up on Successful , replace it with Popular and/or Endearing
       Umm again .. I said the most Succesful PvP MMOs .. and they were/are ..

      Guildwars is not an MMO ...dismissed example ,,

        ohh thx .. another i forgot about ,, but thx for the Help Lineage was and is not balanced either ..
      Umm again Guildwars is not an MMO , as even stated by the devs ... example dismissed twice

       BS on your Wow projections , nothing was stopping its success at that time .. Nothing

       The rest is insignifigant to the point that ..

      The Most Succesful MMORPG PVP games are/were and with you rHelp ill add Lineage/UO/ACDarktide/War/Shadowbane /Darkfall /Vanilla Wow / ill Add AoC , and Eldurian reminder of Eve

      None of these games have Balance ..

      you know what has Balance GW2 and it fuggin blows because of it ...

      Balance is not good for any MMORPG wanting PVP , Imbalance is needed to cultivate teamwork , community , rivalries and competeitve warfare ..

         The example of a  Vet picking on a Noob is Weak .. its Rarely happens these days and in Most every game its there are systems in place to prevent it.... So a really weak and worthless arguement
    Post edited by Scorchien on
Sign In or Register to comment.